Malcolm wrote:...According to Garab Dorje, prior to the arising of the basis which is latent during the dark eon interval, nevertheless there are traces of affliction and action remaining from the previous eon. Because of these traces, the basis is stirred, the five lights appear and so on (this is why the Dzogcgen doctrine of two different kinds of Buddhahood is critical -- the first, the buddhahood that reverts the basis is the buddhahood asserted by all lower vehicles. The buddhahood that does not revert to the basis is the preserve of only Dzogchen).

The Gongpa Zangthal cycle supplies that during the arising of basis there is a neutral awareness (shes pa lung ma bstan) in the basis that does not recognize itself. This non-recognition is the innate ignorance. When this neutral awareness cognizes the five lights there is a dividing line between nirvana and samsara. When a neutral awareness recognizes the appearance of the basis as its own appearances it is is prajñā and is immediately liberated. That is Samantabhadra. A neutral awareness that does not recognize appearances as its own appearances immediately is the imputing ignorance, and samsara begins (again) because subject and object is imputed. This is all very clearly explained in detail in the eleven topics of Dzogchen Nyinthig. This is also clearly explained by Khenpo Ngawang Palzang.

After the basis arises, innate ignorance is first and even Samantabhadra has it. There is period where a neutral awareness does not recognize itself in anyway. That is the innate ignorance. It (the neutral awareness) can only recognize itself through the display of five lights. When it recognizes that display as its own display, then this is the liberation of Samantabhadra without the performance of an iota of virtue. We on the other hand did not recognize these five lights as our own display, and for us, samsara began, without even an particle of non-virtue having been done.

According to Dzogchen teachings, all sentient being attain Buddhahood by the end of the eon -- this is very clearly stated by Garab Dorje in the commentary above. But there are two kinds of Buddhahood, and as I said above, there is only Buddhahood that does not revert to the basis, and that is the Buddhahood attained through Dzogchen methods. The Buddhahood of other vehicles reverts to the basis, without the corresponding result.

Now then, the reason why we cannot take these metaphors in Uttaratantra literally is that the basis is not Buddhahood. If the basis were Buddhahood, there would be no need for any kind of recognition.

In Dzogchen, there is a difference between the basis and the result. The difference is simply vidyā and avidyā and the recognition and non-recognition that comes from those.

Further, it is not enough merely to understand the general original basis. One must also understand the human body as a basis.

So all those beings that have not achieved budhahood through the Dzogche doctrine will have to cycle in samsara again at the end of the dark eon?

trevor wrote:So all those beings that have not achieved budhahood through the Dzogche doctrine will have to cycle in samsara again at the end of the dark eon?

Not exactly. What happens is, the best I understand is, is that while their consciousnesses are liberated, they have not completely eradicated all traces from the elements, and therefore, this unresolved contamination causes the latent awareness in the basis to arise from the movement of vāyu in the basis. When this neutral awareness recognizes its own state, it becomes prajñā, when it does not, it becomes ignorance. Just to be clear, this latent awareness of the basis is not a unified field, it is relative and differentiated. Thus, even though all sentient beings acheive liberation, sentient beings are not somehow newly created.

Malcolm wrote: Just to be clear, this latent awareness of the basis is not a unified field, it is relative and differentiated. Thus, even though all sentient beings acheive liberation, sentient beings are not somehow newly created.

Sentient beings are just nexus of affliction, nothing more.

M

I'm probably misunderstanding it, but this seems to contradict with an earlier statement:

How do they arise? They arise when neutral awarenesss in the basis makes the error of not recognizing the display of the a basis as its own display. The imputing ignorance results in self and other, the ālaya forms, the twelve links start up, samsara and nirvana divide. Etc.

As I mentioned above, Dzoghchen texts do not distinguish whether this neutral awareness in the basis is multiple or singular.

Fascinating stuff. So after innumerable cycles will all the beings that realize and then forget their 'non-Dzogchen liberation' eventually, (randomly?) find Dzogchen teachings and be irreversibly realized? In other words will there ever be a complete cessation of suffering to this existence?

magnagei wrote:Fascinating stuff. So after innumerable cycles will all the beings that realize and then forget their 'non-Dzogchen liberation' eventually, (randomly?) find Dzogchen teachings and be irreversibly realized? In other words will there ever be a complete cessation of suffering to this existence?

There is no such thing as irreversibly realized (awakened), realization and ignorance is just the 2 states of the neutral consciousness (awareness) as the basis of samsara and nirvana which are constantly present. The intellect (vidya or the sixth consciousness) has to be present and actively engage in its own discrimination in order for re-awakening (bodhi) to constantly occur. Complete cessation of suffering is the concept in the teaching of the small vehicle, in reality nothing (including suffering) will cease to arise again, what is arisen is the neutral consciousness, which is the body of the ground, the ground is termed alaya or dharmadhatu, depending on the presence or absence of the means (intellect) that recognized it. If you understand the distinction and inseparability of body and means, then this is key to understanding the 9 yanas on the stand point of definitive meaning.

Nighthawk wrote:Jyoti, what is the point of wasting time practicing if Buddhahood is impermanent?

Impermanent does not imply permanent cessation. Since there is no permanent cessation of either bliss or suffering, two paths are opened, one lead to wholesomeness and the other to ill, the path that lead to wholesomeness is the objective of buddhism. On the other hand, if there is really such thing as buddhahood being permanent, then the state of ignorance would not have being possible, and all practice has no reason to exist in the first place.

Nighthawk wrote:Jyoti, what is the point of wasting time practicing if Buddhahood is impermanent?

Impermanent does not imply permanent cessation. Since there is no permanent cessation of either bliss or suffering, two paths are opened, one lead to wholesomeness and the other to ill, the path that lead to wholesomeness is the objective of buddhism. On the other hand, if there is really such thing as buddhahood being permanent, then the state of ignorance would not have being possible, and all practice has no reason to exist in the first place.

Jyoti

As pointed out by Malcolm many times there are two types of buddhahood in dzogchen. One that reverts back to the basis and one that does not, the one that does not revert back can never fall back into sentient being hood. That buddhahood can said to be permanent such as the buddhahood of Padmasambhava, Milarepa etc.

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.

Nighthawk wrote:As pointed out by Malcolm many times there are two types of buddhahood in dzogchen. One that reverts back to the basis and one that does not, the one that does not revert back can never fall back into sentient being hood. That buddhahood can said to be permanent such as the buddhahood of Padmasambhava, Milarepa etc.

True,

"You might now ask, 'why wouldn't confusion reoccur as before, after the spontaneous presence dissolved back into primordial purity and one was liberated through naturally cognizing the manner of the spontaneously present ground-appearance manifesting from the ground?' This is because no basis exists for it's re-arising. Samantabhadra's liberation into the ground itelf and the yogi liberated through practicing the path are both devoid of any basis for reverting back to becoming a cause, just like a person who has recovered from a plague or the fruit of the se tree (a particular tree which is poisonous to touch, causing blisters and swelling. Once recovered, one is then immune). Other than these two cases, all sentient beings became confused when the ground-appearance of spontaneous presence manifested from the original ground of primordial purity and they failed to recognize that manifestation to be their own self-display."- Tsele Natsok Rangdrol

Nighthawk wrote:Jyoti, what is the point of wasting time practicing if Buddhahood is impermanent?

Impermanent does not imply permanent cessation. Since there is no permanent cessation of either bliss or suffering, two paths are opened, one lead to wholesomeness and the other to ill, the path that lead to wholesomeness is the objective of buddhism. On the other hand, if there is really such thing as buddhahood being permanent, then the state of ignorance would not have being possible, and all practice has no reason to exist in the first place.

Jyoti

As pointed out by Malcolm many times there are two types of buddhahood in dzogchen. One that reverts back to the basis and one that does not, the one that does not revert back can never fall back into sentient being hood. That buddhahood can said to be permanent such as the buddhahood of Padmasambhava, Milarepa etc.

The 'two types' actually refered to the 'two path' in my previous explanation, there is no contradiction there. Buddhahood is actually bodhi in sanskirt, it belonged to the category of the means which is not the same as the body. The means is not permanent, but it is the essence of buddhism. Without the means there is no buddhism. Whereas the body of buddhism such as nirvana, dhamadhatu, dharmakaya, etc. these are elements which are permanent.

The main problem of wrong interpretation in the Tibetan tradition is the failure to take into account the differences and inseparability of means and body, for this the consciousness-only school of chinese mahayana has done much better.

Nighthawk wrote:As pointed out by Malcolm many times there are two types of buddhahood in dzogchen. One that reverts back to the basis and one that does not, the one that does not revert back can never fall back into sentient being hood. That buddhahood can said to be permanent such as the buddhahood of Padmasambhava, Milarepa etc.

True,

"You might now ask, 'why wouldn't confusion reoccur as before, after the spontaneous presence dissolved back into primordial purity and one was liberated through naturally cognizing the manner of the spontaneously present ground-appearance manifesting from the ground?' This is because no basis exists for it's re-arising. Samantabhadra's liberation into the ground itelf and the yogi liberated through practicing the path are both devoid of any basis for reverting back to becoming a cause, just like a person who has recovered from a plague or the fruit of the se tree (a particular tree which is poisonous to touch, causing blisters and swelling. Once recovered, one is then immune). Other than these two cases, all sentient beings became confused when the ground-appearance of spontaneous presence manifested from the original ground of primordial purity and they failed to recognize that manifestation to be their own self-display."- Tsele Natsok Rangdrol

In response to the quote, the status of buddha is actually dynamic versus being static, the word 're-awakening' is used to describe this dynamic. When a process is being repeated, it become a cycle, a cycle is permanent, this permanence revealed the true body which is the dharmakaya. Just like samsara is impermanent, but being a continuous revolving cycle reveal the permanence of its true body which is nirvana.

However, without the mechanism that support the process, the circle that form the re-awakening dynamic will not form, that mechanism is not make up of permanent element, but of causal components, such as the mental factors and transformation of consciousnesses. When the right cause is present, all these components start to function as directed, and the awakening dynamic begin to form, this is termed bodhi, it is a functioning component, a form of means, not to be confused as the body which is static and beyond cause (beyond the possibility of doing anything with regard to awakening or delusion).

"You might now ask, 'why wouldn't confusion reoccur as before, after the spontaneous presence dissolved back into primordial purity and one was liberated through naturally cognizing the manner of the spontaneously present ground-appearance manifesting from the ground?' This is because no basis exists for it's re-arising. Samantabhadra's liberation into the ground itelf and the yogi liberated through practicing the path are both devoid of any basis for reverting back to becoming a cause, just like a person who has recovered from a plague or the fruit of the se tree (a particular tree which is poisonous to touch, causing blisters and swelling. Once recovered, one is then immune). Other than these two cases, all sentient beings became confused when the ground-appearance of spontaneous presence manifested from the original ground of primordial purity and they failed to recognize that manifestation to be their own self-display."- Tsele Natsok Rangdrol

In response to the quote, the status of buddha is actually dynamic versus being static, the word 're-awakening' is used to describe this dynamic. When a process is being repeated, it become a cycle, a cycle is permanent, this permanence revealed the true body which is the dharmakaya. Just like samsara is impermanent, but being a continuous revolving cycle reveal the permanence of its true body which is nirvana.

However, without the mechanism that support the process, the circle that form the re-awakening dynamic will not form, that mechanism is not make up of permanent element, but of causal components, such as the mental factors and transformation of consciousnesses. When the right cause is present, all these components start to function as directed, and the awakening dynamic begin to form, this is termed bodhi, it is a functioning component, a form of means, not to be confused as the body which is static and beyond cause (beyond the possibility of doing anything with regard to awakening or delusion).

While these threads concerning the basis do tend to get somewhat abstract, I'm having difficulty deciphering what you're attempting to say. The terminology you're using is causing this to appear somewhat obfuscated, which is making the point you're attempting to make unclear (at least to me). I actually can't even tell if you're validating the quote and this is a commentary of sorts, or if you're refuting it and this is your own view.

asunthatneversets wrote:While these threads concerning the basis do tend to get somewhat abstract, I'm having difficulty deciphering what you're attempting to say. The terminology you're using is causing this to appear somewhat obfuscated, which is making the point you're attempting to make unclear (at least to me). I actually can't even tell if you're validating the quote and this is a commentary of sorts, or if you're refuting it and this is your own view.

Not validating the quote, because the quote has deficiency that is what I have attempt to point out. That is, focus on the body which itself is causeless, there is no necessitate to express anything regarding the body, since they are changeless regardless of what is being done, realize or unrealize, true or false. It is the means that would make a difference, the means cannot become one the body, there is no requirement to become one with the body either, what the quote seems to be saying is unification of the two, and point out a case where after the unification has taking place, the means cannot be revert back again to previous state of non-unification. But the unification is false, it cannot occurred, this is a technical problem.

Here the specifics:

"spontaneous presence dissolved back into primordial purity "

Spontaneousness presence and primordial purity are not two different things, they are different terms for the same body (dharmakaya), why mentioned "dissolved"? To make sense, I had to interprets this spontaneous presence as the means (intellect/vidya), but this would poses the technical problem that the means cannot become the body.

"one was liberated through naturally cognizing the manner of the spontaneously present ground-appearance manifesting from the ground"

This 'one' refered to person, 'naturally cognizing' refer to using the means (vidya), 'the ground' refer to the body (dharmakaya), it is only this utilization of means (or 'naturally cognizing') , no requirement for anything to be dissolved onto another thing, that would be a technical fallacy in buddhism.

"This is because no basis exists for it's re-arising. Samantabhadra's liberation into the ground itelf and the yogi liberated through practicing the path are both devoid of any basis for reverting back to becoming a cause"

This is all refering to the body (dharmakaya and dhamadhutu), it describe the body too much for something which is beyond cause, the ill effect is when such descriptions become confused as the means, which can never become as such.